CH47 Chinook

[Strike]

The "Just in Time" system that is used on the Tac Hel side isn't there for small everyday parts, it's there for larger items.  Although it would be nice for us to have a full store available whenever we need it, it's not feasible for the amount of times we nay need those items.  Not only that, but we are not the only ones using these types of aircraft and this is why the system reduces our footprint environmentally.

Let's take the CH146 as an example.  Large items like transmissions, windscreens, etc are received from Calgary, Montreal and sometimes Texas, because that's where the main Bell centres are.

Using the example of an SI isn't realistic as most SIs involve smaller items being replaced, which are usually held by the units.  If we run out we still have some aircraft serviceable and order the parts through Bell.  If the SI involves a large item, then the fleet would have to be grounded regardless even if we held the parts because of the manpower and hours required to carry out the inspections and repairs.

As for the issue of the Chinook blades, sure, we'll probably go through a few, but I suspect no more than what we go through on the Griffon side.  With the proper tarining of everyone involved accidents like bowsers and trees can be avoided.

 

[observor 69]

See Strike above:

"As for the issue of the Chinook blades, sure, we'll probably go through a few, but I suspect no more than what we go through on the Griffon side.  With the proper tarining of everyone involved accidents like bowsers and trees can be avoided minimized."

 

[beenthere]

http://www.chqsoftware.net/product_info.php?products_id=125&osCsid=c9110ec00644322c2362ed35f0ea9922
I found some examples of CH-47 service bulletins at the link above. They may help to illustrate the vast difference between the Chinook and the Griffon.

The Griffon is rather like a Honda Civic where The Chinook could probably be compared to  an 18 wheel transport truck. I make the comparison to simplify the difference for people who have limited experience and may have been misled by glossy sales brochures produced by Boeing.

The service bulletins usually entail more than checking for things like improperly installed seat belts and other  nuances that plague little helicopters.
I rather doubt that the stock of split pins and tiewraps that a TACHEL Sqn. gets by on would be of much help for a Chinook operation.

Also as the unit will be the one and only operation of it's type in Canada and it will provide all inspection and maintenance for the fleet from one facility it would only require the use of the free but much underused common sense that most of us have to rely on to conclude that it would be a great idea to keep a whole bunch of spares on site

It's all well and good to play the green game but there are some times when for the sake of operational efficiency we have to do what's practical.
Unless of course you are in some sort competition to be named as the greenest aviation unit in the CF and I'm sure that every Chinook that sits on the ground rather than goes flying will vastly reduce carbon use and those nasty emissions.

 

[Strike]

It might be the only Chinook unit in Canada, but it certainly won't be the only one in North America.  Where do you think 4th line maintenance with be done?  So it won't be providing ALL inspections and maintenance.  I might be getting picky, but it's only because you are not looking beyond our 1 unit and our borders.

As for being green, this is a CF policy, not an Air Force one.  Why do you think we have a massive supply depot in Montreal?

To quote captloadie:

Stores held at the unit or on the base are based on the consumption levels and stock limits provided to the supply system by the USER and the Program manager

This means it makes no sense carrying 3 full sets of blades, the same amount of transmissions and engines, and half a dozen windscressn.  Sure, have one or two on hand and then order replacements as they are used, as is the norm.  These items don't get replaced every day, even in theatre.

To put this in perspective, do you buy 30 jumbo packs of toilet paper so that you don't run out during the year?  Of course you don't (unless you are some type of hoarder in which case may I direct you to a pretty cool show on A&E on Monday nights).  Not only is this cost prohibitive, but the space it takes up could be used for other things.

 

[Loachman]

When the Jet Rangers in Portage were turned over to Bombardier in 1992, all of the spares purchsed for the fleet came out of whatever supply depot(s) where they had been warehoused for the ten years that we'd been operating Jet Rangers, and were consolidated in Portage. Some things had both the Bombardier guys and us a little baffled and amused: there was a whole main uselage section in a crate, primed in zinc chromate.

We'd bought and  paid for something that had never been used, and was never likely to have been, and if we ever needed it there certainly would have not been any rush.

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in this "green" crap, but there is no sense whatsoever in buying stuff that is not likely to be needed much and/or in a hurry. I have reasonable confidence that parts will be stocked in the quantities and locations where it makes the most sense.

These are not the same old Chinooks that we bought three and a half decades ago, and the CF maintenance and supply systems and manufacturer support systems have all changed too.

 

[danchapps]

Some people who have never worked in the supply system should keep in their lanes. You don't hear us whining that every time I went out to a CC-130 to rig it for a drop, the techs hadn't done their job and I had to wait.

The supply system isn't a "Just in Time System". Stores held at the unit or on the base are based on the consumption levels and stock limits provided to the supply system by the USER and the Program manager, which rarely ask the supply system important questions like what the lead times for delivery, or bother to tell the system where to source the parts/POL from.  Maybe if someone goes out to Mountainview and scrounges through the parts that are sitting out there (including brand new engines for long ago retired aircraft) maybe they will find some Chinook parts left over from the time when we ordered 5 of everything just in case.

Thank you for saying this as I was just about to start fuming about it.

beenthere, we have 2 main Supply Depots, 1 here in Edmonton, and 1 in Montreal. Items that take a while to get are sometimes on back order from the manufacturer, or we are awaiting new procurment contracts (item manager stuff, far above any regular supply tech's job). So before you go around decrying the system sit there and think of some of the other factors that come into play. Also, was there not a maintenance contract that was signed as well? Is that not the defacto thing the gov't is putting into the big contracts now? I don't think we are going to be in a big hurt for parts, not for a while anyway.

 

[beenthere]

I'm not knocking the supply system but rather the idea that it's more important to be green than maintain a reasonable stock of spares right at the place where they are needed.

Spares will no doubt be needed from day one. Despite the sales pitch that paints the latest model of Chinook as being the perfect helicopter it's very complex and still retains a mass of systems that cannot work without failures.

Troubleshooting a system such as the "automatic" flight controls which are a combination of sensors, control units and hydraulic components as well as mechanical linkages usually involves swapping out so called black boxes and other components until the faulty component is isolated. Without a supply of components there is no option other than robbing parts from other aircraft. Once the robbing starts it becomes epidemic and results in two or more aircraft being unserviceable rather than one. It also causes duplication of maintenance functions as parts that are removed have to be replaced on both aircraft. Techs get pissed off when they work in a system that lacks the materials required to do their jobs and the whole situation deteriorates into a laughable but sad fiasco.

Test equipment used to check such systems comes at great expense and with all sorts of promises that it's capable of finding faults. However in reality it often cannot detect some of the simple faults that cause problems.
It's so smart that it overlooks the obvious. Just like some people.

Quick engine change units are essential to efficient aviation operations as it's often more efficient to change the complete engine than to change engine components while the engine is mounted on the aircraft. Sometimes an engine develops  faults that defy the usual troubleshooting techniques and removing it is a better option than an endless series of test flights. The best place to check functions is on a test stand where the techs can test the engine as many times as required and do all kinds of adjustments on the spot without all of the complications of calling in a crew and flying the aircraft, landing, making adjustments or changing components and then going through the whole flight test again.

If an aircraft develops an engine problem away from home base the sqn. can dispatch a repair crew with a spare engine that's kept right in the hangar and the whole recovery task can be completed in less time than it would take to ship the engine from the supply depot to the sqn.
To even think of an operational unit not having a QECU on hand defies logic.

 

[Strike]

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in this "green" crap, but there is no sense whatsoever in buying stuff that is not likely to be needed much and/or in a hurry. I have reasonable confidence that parts will be stocked in the quantities and locations where it makes the most sense.

I'm not knocking the supply system but rather the idea that it's more important to be green than maintain a reasonable stock of spares right at the place where they are needed.

Yes, parts that are used often will in all probability be kept at the unit, as has been stated already.

As for automatic flight controls, there is enough experience between the aircraft that we are flying now that the big heads in the maintenance world and supply will have a reasonable idea of what will have to be kept close by.  Not to mention that they are relatively small and don't take up much room in the way of stores.

Quick engine changes are essential, but that doesn't mean there's a reason to keep 3 or 4 of them kicking around in case they all go tits up.  Do you keep a full set of tires in your garage in case all of them go at once?  No, you have 1 spare (winter tires don't count in this analogy) because the chances of you losing all your tires at once is pretty remote...unless make a habit of pissing off the cops and run over a barrier of course.  ;D

The system may not be perfect, but it works for the Griffons both at home and abroad and is somewhat* working for the Chinooks overseas.  Let it go.

*I say somewhat working for the Chinooks overseas simply because we didn't have a Canadian stock system set up for these aircraft when we first got them and ordering parts and POL was a bit of a bear.  Not sure if this is still the case or not.  I've been out of that loop for almost a year now.

 

[Loachman]

We seem to be able to look after our other fleets fairly well, acknowledging that nothing is perfect (and neither was the old system), so why expect New Chinook to be any different in that regard than CH146, C17, and C130J etcetera?

 

[Good2Golf]

I think the folks will have the logistics worked out for the Hook.  Boeing (Vertol) is a very capable supporter of their products.  Whatever parts need to be kept in location to support 1st through 3rd level maintenance will be, the rest will be a blend of items supported by the CFSS (and the unit will leave that to the CF log/supply pros to manage) and the rest will be managed by Boeing and the in-service support provider (yet to be determined, but to be chosen by competitive assessment process with PWGSC).  I have faith that lessons learned from previous and recent acquisitions were taken into account in the work with the Chinook, and that both the aircraft and the installation will support the capability for decades to come.

Cheers
G2G

 

[beenthere]

Finally! From out of nowhere--or wherever you are these days GTG-- comes a perfectly reasonable statement that covers it all and excludes green and "Just In Time".
Thanks for shining your light into what was a rather dark corner.

I had faith that  people who use good judgment biased on common sense and experience would provide the Chinook fleet with a first class facility and a system to provide the logistical and maintenance support it requires.

I suppose you sat in the sidelines giggling while I tried to reason with the unreasonable. :

 

[Loachman]

I suppose you sat in the sidelines giggling while I tried to reason with the unreasonable.

Strike and I were unreasonable?

 

[dapaterson]

Strike and I were unreasonable?

In general or in particular?

 

[beenthere]

Strike and I were unreasonable?

You weren't unreasonable.

 

[Loachman]

Thanks. I didn't think so, but was not sure what you meant.

Have a little faith in this programme, though.

 

[beenthere]

I do have faith in the program based on GTGs excellent post which includes information that a comprehensive stock of spares will be maintained at the facility.

Your post regarding all of the Jet Ranger parts that were unearthed sounds familiar. Just before 450 Sqn got it's first Chinook an 18 wheel transport truck arrived at the sqn with a load of Chinook parts. No doubt the shipper had mistakenly understood that the sqn would be the delivery point for the spares involved with the helicopter purchase.

It looked as if Boeing had done some sort of a cleanup and no doubt it also included a substantial price markup. There were cartons of structural components such as brackets that would only be used during construction or rebuilding the aircraft and other obscure items. Also included were a huge number of general stock items such as clocks and standby compasses that weren't specifically used on the Chinook. The pile of goods sat in a corner of the hangar for several months until someone made arrangements to consign it all to the supply system. I doubt if anything in the load was ever used on the aircraft and this was only one shipment of parts.

I don't know if this little tale is factual but several years ago someone told a story about someone ordering a fuel filler door which was essentially an 8"x10" piece of aluminum sheet metal for a Canso aircraft. The response from the system was that there were none in stock but they suggested that they did have  the "next highest assembly".  Whoever was involved agreed  to accept the offer and a few days late they received a complete wing assembly. It's certainly not beyond belief that something like this could happen.  :warstory:

 

[Good2Golf]

Truth be told, beenthere, I've been busy enough recently that I have far less time to spend 'after hours', so there was no snickering from the bleachers.  The team is taking everything that has been learned to date to make things a success.  I'm sure there will still be some teething pains, but those will be worked out, and I'm certain we'll see a good CF/OEM/ISS team effort to keep the beast in the air!  :nod: 

I just hope the folks with the unit will be able to handle all the poking and prodding everyone will want to do when the beast shows up on the line.  The PA folks may actually have the busiest job of all....Strike, did you hear that? ;D

Cheers
G2G

 

[dapaterson]

I just hope the folks with the unit will be able to handle all the poking and prodding everyone will want to do when the beast shows up on the line.  The PA folks may actually have the busiest job of all....

Yeah, 'cause they'll probably stick some egotistical guy in as the CO who only wants his good side showing in photos - you know the type, GTG...

 

[Journeyman]

Yeah, 'cause they'll probably stick some egotistical guy in as the CO who only wants his good side showing in photos - you know the type, GTG...

Well, I'm not Airforce, but I can't imagine someone being selected as CO having a bad side for photo ops 

 

[HItorMiss]

I didn't know anyone in the Airforce had a "good" side...  ;D